Thursday, February 08, 2007

Several of the comments on the previous post had some mistaken assumptions or questions, such as whether parking at the Scaleybark station would be built by the city, and whether it would be free.

Tom Flynn, the city of Charlotte's economic development director, had some answers.

– The parking for transit riders will be free. At this point, says Flynn, both development proposals under consideration would also offer free parking for people using the stores. It's possible, Flynn says, that the residential portion of the development would have parking restricted to residents only.

– Flynn also verifies that, essentially, the city is paying for the parking at the station. Each development proposal is a complicated financial deal, with developers paying $3 million to the city for land CATS had bought earlier, planning for parking. The developers will pay to build 315 parking spaces. (The Bank of America proposal calls for a deck, worth about $5 million to $6 million, and the Scaleybark Partners' proposal would be a surface parking lot costing about $1.5 million, which might convert to a deck during a future Phase II development). In each case the city would end up either owning the land under the parking lot, or owning a portion of the parking spaces in the deck.

– How much will monthly transit passes cost? I have a call in to CATS PR woman Jean Leier.But they're expected to be the same as monthly bus passes. Current monthly bus passes (unlimited rides) are $48, and express bus passes (unlimited rides) $66. A fare increase has been proposed (a public hearing is set for Feb. 28) under which monthly bus passes would be $52 starting July 1, and express passes $70. One trip (bus or rail or a combination of both) would be $1.30.

– Yes, the Scaleybark Partners' proposal includes land the developers had purchased previously in hopes of doing a transit-oriented development at the site. In analyzing the deals, the question before council will be whether to spend more now and get a larger, more intense transit-oriented development that is expected to bring in more tax revenue in future years, or spend less public money now for a development that won't bring in as much money later.

– And who goes to the store at a transit station? Experience in other cities shows that, as usual, "It depends." The more residents living within walking distance, the better chances for retail that goes beyond coffee shop/newsstand/dry cleaners. Both development proposals include a grocery store and a library branch.

– One final point. Cities such as Atlanta and Miami built transit systems but didn't, until a few years ago, change their suburban-style land use codes. Much of the development at their transit stops wasn't conducive to walk-in or bicycle-in business and didn't encourage high-density residential development nearby. They had a lot of big parking lots right next to the stations, and so missed out on the possiblity for coffee shops, dry cleaners, etc. That means comparing development at Atlanta's Metro stations of 15 years ago with Charlotte's plans is kind of apples to oranges.

I'm glad Mary mentioned how Miami and it's pseudo-commuter rail really didn't plan for mixed use/TOD development in their station area plans. I think they really missed out on substantial ridership and are only now starting to realize their past mistakes.

I'm also glad Charlotte has learned from others and is trying to create a viable TOD site not all that far from Uptown. It's takes more effort (time and money) up front, but I feel the finished product will be one that the City can be proud of.

I look forward to the start of light rail service and commend both the City and CATS on making this a reality!

So we know the cost of the monthly light rail pass. What is the taxpayer subsidy on a daily basis per rider? I read that Ron Tober currently estimates that the taxpayer subsidy to cover the operating deficits will be somewhere between $13 to $18 per rider EACH WAY every single day.

They are assuming that the cost of the tickets will only cover about 10% of the cost of actually operating the light rail system. Taxpayers pay for the rest of it.

God help us if they actually build more of these trains. It could bankrupt the city/county.

You are correct. Taxes pay for both roads and rail, and I never implied otherwise. However, let me ask a simple question.

When you drive to work vs. riding transit, does govco pay for you to park in a well lit flat lot or a new parking garage?

We both know the answer to that one.

The difference between them as government services is that govco has to spend ADDITIONAL tax dollars just to induce people to use transit as a service.

Maybe Mary can answer this one.

Is the cost of this additional inducement included in the $465 million for the South corridor? I honestly don't know. I'm sure the purchase price of the land probably was included, but was the ongoing parking subsidy?

One of the cornerstones of our constitution is that our government is to "promote the general welfare".

My interpretation of that is that we hire (elect) people to make those decisions for us, decisions that need a much broader view of things than what we, as individuals, may have on any particular issue at any particular time.

Our local government has long been land-banking, or assembling parcels of land for future use. In general a good thing. There are some landowners who will hold out trying to maximize the price of their property based on external valuation. I believe there is an individual who still owns land around BankofAmerica stadium who took that position.

You could look at those individuals and say they are robber barons, the same way you can curse developers. To avoid that, government over time, sometimes 10 or more years, will buy and sit on property awaiting furure development, in an effort to make that future development more paletable.

The Scaleybark Station and general area is surrounded on one side by warehouses and the new Transit Yard, and across South Boulevard, it is full of modest ranch style homes, many of which are being renovated, not McMansion style, but upfitted and modernized. Nice neighborhood.

Developers, like everyone of us, are entitled to make a profit. Their work is laid out in front of all, unlike all of us, and can be praised or condemned by any. Look at Jim Gross and the "Pepto Bismo" building. You can say many things about that building, but most of all, everyone knows where it is, and in a sense, Jim has land banked on that spot for it will sit almost on top of a station.

Generally, I hate when government tinkers with free market direction, but in the case of land banking, I do agree with it. It rewards current owners with a fair price for their property; it only hurts the tax base by taking that parcel off the books while it is owned; it allows for the assembly of parcels that could lead to future profitability, both privately and publically.

In a way, it is like paying for a child's college education. While in college, many of us shake our heads and wonder why we do it, but when these graduates begin to contribute to the work force 10 years later, the value is achieved.

I am glad we elect officials who can take the long view, and hire people who can establise a direction (TOD zoning) and shepard developers through that process.

It is never perfect, and some make out better than others, but that is the way it is.

I'm trying to recall in my 13 years of Metro riding in DC -- including 2 years of walking to a station and 4 more of walking and riding a bus to a station -- of instances of using a retail shop at the outer station.

Inbound, maybe to drop off dry cleaning once or twice. Eateries? No you are pressed for time and you can't take the food with you onto the bus or train.

Outbound, Silver Spring did have a fun little used CD place I might hit if the weather has nice and I had extra cash in my pocket come Friday, but that was rare. And I think I stopped ot get a haircut once or twice. But mostly you are just focused on getting home.

Besides, retail slots near outer Metro stops just couldn't have been tremendous money-makers as there was pretty constant turnover in them.

The idea that Charlotte is somehow going to "create" tremendous value just by running a $500m. train past a few doors is absurd. In fact, even the developers involved do not believe that or they would not be asking for subsidies for their projects.

I think the best course of action is to finish the South Blvd train. That one is too far along to throw it away.

But we should just let that area along South Blvd mature for 10 years before we consider building more trains. We will all learn a great deal from watching South Blvd. Ridership, retail and residential development, operating costs, crime, etc. All of the pros and cons will come out.

Then in 10 years, if South Blvd is a success or failure, we can learn from that and move forward.

HAs anyone else noticed that Mary and others like to draw on comparisons from places like Milan, Paris, New York, Chicago?

Then when we compare more realistic scenarios like Atlanta or Miami (which is still a stretch population-wise) and Cleveland,and Pittsburg, then WE are comparing apples to oranges.

Also, people like Jat are a great resource to understanding transit.

For too long now, political leaders and Smart Growth advocates have used "retail development" and fancy canopies and global warming as flairs in the sky to distact the public from the crippling costs associated with mass-transit.

The fact is that the user rate is so narrow in a community like ours mass-transit just doesn't make much sense.

Someone earlier astutely pointed out that the developers certainly know this which is why the government is just going to give Pappas and company trucks full of cash for playing the game.

A great example "the Elite" (political and financial) being in bed together.

I disagree. I think they should extend the South LRT line to the North to atleast UNCC. I got to UNCC and I would love to have a train to take downtown or to South End or NoDa. It would make this city a lot more exciting and it would make it a lot easier to get around. So all you old fogies go away! We want the train!

MARY WRITES: "...more intense transit-oriented development that is expected to bring in more tax revenue in future years, or spend less public money now for a development that won't bring in as much money later...."

This attitude is the problem with current government. Far beyond providing services which are needed by society and which will not be provided by the capitalistic economic side of society, government agents have begun to take taxpayer money and spend it on personal projects.

Rail lite then should be seen in the perspective it is a government agent project which, in trying to cause slight changes in economic activity, justify the waste and extortion of government and taxes.

This is most easily seen by noting who the development is for.Those who NEED transit are the poor. Is the encouraged development for them or others. How will the poor get to the train to ride downtown to cook, clean etc?

AH - walk in the rain to an uncovered stop, wait on a bus to go to the train.

But, upon getting downtown, where the pc police exist in mass, there the bus stops have $65,000 covers to pretend we care about the riders.

Oh MY!People who don't NEED transit ride transit! So if the relatively rich people ride, does that mean poor people don't NEED to get to their jobs?

People who need transit stand in the rain, the sleet, the summer heat, the winter cold, the puddle splash from passing cars to wait on the bus. I don't see many rich and middle class doing that in Charlotte.

My point was about who NEEDS transit, not who CHOOSES it over other available options.Some people have little or none.

It is a HALF CENT transit tax. Are you people really that CHEAP? HALF A CENT. Get over it. This tax also covers some costs of the bus system, and without it, the bus system would be in serious trouble.

Please tell me, what is your solution? A tax to widen roads? Do you know that the STATE owns most of the major roads all of us want widened? It would cost the city a lot more money to widen the road itself.

You must be either new to this discussion or you haven't been listening. The "you are so cheap" argument doesn't hold water.

Most anti-train people, including myself, are not anti-transit, or anti-environment. We are anti-waste. If the money was not wasted on trains that solve no problems then any sane individual would not be against the tax. We have transportation problems, and they need to be solved. I myself have even stated on this forum that I would be for the tax - even an increased tax - if it would not be wasted.

The money could be used for many more ideas other than roads.

How about these ideas:

1. Greatly expanding the express bus system, which would be much more flexible than fixed trains.

2. Supporting telecommuting through telework centers. This would be similar to how the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments does. See this link for more info:

www.mwcog.org/commuter/Bdy-TDMTele.html

3. Supporting or investing in companies such as Hybrid Technologies which has a major facility in Mooresville. See this link for more info:

http://hybridtechnologies.com/

4. Repairing our existing roads which are constantly behind on their maintenance schedules.

Since our local officials have not seen the errors in their ways, and are not willing to admit their mistakes, the only course of action is to repeal the existing transit tax and start over.

About Mary and The Naked City blog

Mary Newsom is an Observer associate editor and op-ed columnist who's been covering growth, neighborhoods, urban design, sustainable development and related topics since 1995. In "The Naked City" you'll read her take on those topics and others.